Confusion, Inclusivity, and Sweetgrass
When I first read Futamura’s Writing a Mathematical Art Manifesto, I found myself confused. The article kept building toward the idea of creating this manifesto, a bold declaration of what mathematical art is and what it rejects. I felt like I was left hanging. The more I delved into this idea of a manifesto the more it became clear. In my understanding a manifesto would name a paradigm, criticize it, and introduce a new direction. They are passionate, declarative, and sometimes intentionally provocative. But I struggled with the narrowing impulse. If someone creates something, whether by hand, by code, through weaving, carving, programming, or patterning, is it not art? Why must we define it tightly? Why must something be rejected?
My instinct is inclusivity. As I reflected more deeply, I
realized that my discomfort was not about manifestos themselves, but about the
fear that replication, especially through technology, might somehow disqualify something as
original art. If a mathematical pattern can be generated through code, does
that make it less authentic? If a structure can be repeated, does it lose its
originality? I used the idea of sweetgrass to help me think this through.
Traditional sweetgrass braiding may have begun as practical for ceremony, medicine, or utility. Yet it is undeniably expressive. The braid carries rhythm, repetition, proportion, structure. It holds embodied knowledge. Patterns are passed down. They are replicated. And yet each braid remains deeply meaningful. The originality is not erased by repetition. It lives in intention, relationship, and cultural context. In that sense, replication does not remove art.
Similarly, if a mathematician writes code that generates
a woven structure based on braid mathematics, the computer becomes a medium,
much like a loom. The artistry resides in the choices: the constraints, the
structure, the transformation, the framing. Technology does not erase
creativity; it shifts the form of expression.
What Futamura’s article began to clarify for me is that a
manifesto is not about excluding. It is about articulating values. It asks:
What role does mathematics play in this art? Is math a tool, a demonstration
device, or the generative engine of beautiful expression? Where does
mathematical thinking, pattern, abstraction, transformation, rhythm, live in
the creative act?
For me, mathematical art is not about illustration or education. It is about structure meeting story. It is about pattern holding meaning. It is about logic and emotion coexisting. In sweetgrass weaving, mathematical structure is inseparable from cultural narrative. In code-based generative art, mathematical structure may be inseparable from conceptual design. In both cases, mathematics becomes a language of form.
If I were to gesture toward a manifesto of my own, it
would not reject replication. It would reject the false divide between logic
and creativity. It would reject the hierarchy that elevates “fine art” above
craft or digital creation above expressed making. It would affirm that
mathematical art is creative human expression shaped by structure, rhythm,
transformation, and intention, whether braided by hand or generated through
algorithm.
Perhaps that is what a manifesto offers after all: not a
narrowing of art, but a clarifying of what we believe about its heart.
I enjoyed the honesty of your thoughts about what can be defined as art, specifically considering how the use of technology shifts or impacts that definition.
ReplyDeleteYou mention that braiding is just as much an algorithm as computer code. Last week I played around with string figures and quickly realized that the motions are an algorithm. A rather "black-boxed" one for me at that! I am only at the level of memorizing the motions to reliably produce the end result and do not understand how they work.
I recently came across this website that has been so much fun to explore: https://turtletoy.net/turtle/browse/views/
It is a community for creative coding. You can see the code as well as the art piece it generates. Some of them also have sliders so that non-coders (like me) can manipulate the outcome.
Tracy,
ReplyDeleteI really liked this, especially your idea that a manifesto is about clarifying values, not excluding things. After this week’s reading about the distinction between “real art” and craft or models, your post helped clarify that goal isn’t to rank them, but just to be clear about purpose. I love how you described mathematical art as “structure meeting story.” That feels simple and powerful. It moves the conversation away from labels and more toward what the art is actually doing.
As for your post on the Nick Sayer's video, I really appreciated the whole idea of not being a “math person”, and I agree that we tend to shrink math down to just numbers. I love how you pointed out that mathematical competence isn’t one thing. Maybe we really do need to think of maths in the plural (as in England) there are so many strands and ways to be strong. Some students are spatial thinkers. Some see patterns instantly. Some think relationally. Some are comfortable with symbols. When we define math too narrowly, we miss all of that. It makes me think about how important it is to help students find the part of math where they shine instead of reinforcing one narrow image of success.